At that the time that the British Empire established Palestine thanks to their victories in the "Great War" the area was not a hotbed of strife and war. Being a former possession of the Ottoman Empire it had remained relatively calm during the bulk of their reign there. The true strife did not start in the region until the British Empire, exhausted and decaying had no choice but to pull out of the region in the mid 20th century.

It is expected that Jews would need to resettle where their roots are. The problem in this case is that there were no precautions taken to the way this resettlement was done. The way things were done back then, it couldn't turn out differently.

i understand that jews settled to today's lands called palestine/israel for they believed it was the promised land to them. didnt they consider an alternative?

Jews have lived continuously in the land where the State of Israel is for the last 3,000 years. They had also lived continuously in what is today Iraq; Iran; Syria; Lebanon; and Egypt, in addition to other lands in the Middle East.
There was always a Jewish "movement" to repopulate the area today known as Israel throughout history as it was, indeed, considered the Land of Israel that G-d gave to Israel.
The difficulty was that what is today Israel was largely considered uninhabitable by most of the "civilized" world, including the late Ottoman Empire. The Jews that lived there could usually barely sustain themselves. This was also true of the majority of Arabs that lived there (with the exception of the coast of the Mediterranean). Many were either Bedouin (or other migratory Arabs) or tenant farmers and villagers whose landlords lived in Damascus or further away.
With what has been called "the Emancipation" in countries like Russia or the "Enlightenment" in countries like Germany, Jews were able to emigrate out of their respective European countries for the 1st time in the 1800's.
There was an early movement of religious Jews moving to what was then the Ottoman province of Greater Syria, in the early 1800's.
However, the newly emancipated and often secular Jews of Europe had no strong desire to move to the Land of Israel.
It wasn't until 1882, that what is called the 1st Aliyah began. It was part of a much larger Jewish emigration by disillusioned Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe to Western Europe and the New World. Out of those million plus emigrants, about 30,000 went to the Land of Israel. There was also an immigration of religious Jews from Yemen at this same time.
This immigration into that part of the Ottoman Empire continued up through WWI when Greater Syria changed hands and became the British Mandate of Palestine.
The main reason that Jews continued to migrate from Europe to the Land of Israel in the Middle East was because the Emancipation had created a new, Secular culture of Jews that believed in the idealistic goals of Marxism and Communism and Socialism where Jews would be able to re-establish themselves in the ancient (and, of course, totally anachronistic according to Secular "Judaism") Land of Israel where they could forge a new Jewish culture that would not be subject to the cruelties that Europe had inflicted upon them for the last 1,000 years.
The other Jews of the Middle East had, for the most part, already escaped this European oppression and had no reason to move to the rather harsh Land of Israel where it was very difficult to survive...

Quote:

i mean, why not buy a land from an african country or some other region that is not this explosive. i'm sure they knew that their settlement would cause a lot of trouble, but they did it anyways?

No... As noted above, they were leaving "a lot of trouble" and their other Jewish brethren had been getting along fine with their Arab brothers in the Middle East, who were all nominally part of the same Ottoman Empire, for the last 500 years or so. The idealistic Jews of Europe saw no reason why the Arabs of the Land of Israel should dislike them anymore the Arabs of Egypt or Babylon or Persia or any other part of Arabia.
And, in truth, there was no historical reason why the Arabs of what is today Israel should have disliked the Jews anymore than anywhere else where Jews were living in the Middle East and North Africa.
The hatreds largely began with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire; the acquisition of Ottoman provinces by European Powers; and the newly created Arab or Muslim States who were all vying to be the new Caliphate.
It became the Age of revolution; anarchy; and hatred.
In Europe this Age ended up with the extermination of European Jews.
In the Middle East, this Age ended up with the establishment of the State of Israel.
As all of the newly formed Arab or Muslim States of the Middle East and North Africa were not decimated by WWII as was Europe, these newly formed States were able to direct their energies to continuing to hate and kill each other and focus on Israel in particular.

At that the time that the British Empire established Palestine thanks to their victories in the "Great War" the area was not a hotbed of strife and war. Being a former possession of the Ottoman Empire it had remained relatively calm during the bulk of their reign there. The true strife did not start in the region until the British Empire, exhausted and decaying had no choice but to pull out of the region in the mid 20th century.

And of like one fifth of this Planet, we may add,

Hotbeds of strife and war have been extremely common among former colonies, hardly any coincidence but fundamentally related to the divide et impera policies.

It is expected that Jews would need to resettle where their roots are. The problem in this case is that there were no precautions taken to the way this resettlement was done. The way things were done back then, it couldn't turn out differently.

Why "expected"?

Certainly not the case of most peoples all around this Planet relative to where their roots were two millennia ago.

For better or for worse, the Jewish people have been the exception, not any rule.

Now the problems for any "resettlement" would have been equally fundamentally unavoidable either in Uganda, Madagascar, the Soviet Far East or for that matter Westminster:

- No former residents were going to massively willlingly abadon their homeland.

- There wouldn't have been either any additional "empty place" to relocate the displaced people,

- Last but not least, it would have still been an ethnic cleansing, irrespectively on any euphemism used.

Now, relative to basically any other colonial immigrants, a particular problem of the Jewish identity (ethnic-cultural-national-religious) is that it's a rather selected group.
In practice, that makes the massive assimilation of any other population as fundamentally impossible as it actually currently is for the modern Pšlestinian people.

That said, one couldn't be too harsh with the few brave initial Jewish immigrants either.

By 1917 (yup, the infamous Balfour Declaration) no less than one third of the population of this Planet was under some form of colonial rule; the native populations were being constantly ordered what to do and even where to live by their Masters, more often than not without any particular problem for the later.

In hindisght, there were few hints at the time that could have suggested that the Palestinians would have been any particularly problematic case.

On the other hand, Salonika, Menorca and the aforementioned German cities were locations where the Jewish people had been already living among myriad non-Jewish people; what at least some of them ostensibly wanted was a territory on their own for their own nation, like most other nations.

On the other hand, Salonika, Menorca and the aforementioned German cities were locations where the Jewish people had been already living among myriad non-Jewish people; what at least some of them ostensibly wanted was a territory on their own for their own nation, like most other nations.

Note how stalin put it right in former manchu territory. Stalin dumped tons of european origin people on land inhabited by asiatic peoples.